inference_check_provider

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that no signature is needed and that the probe performs a real functional call returning a completion. It does not say whether that probe incurs cost/quota, whether results are recorded server-side, or whether repeated calls are rate limited — relevant for something that fires real inference.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The operational content is front-loaded and compact: what it does, that it requires no signature, and when to run it. The trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities...' is unrelated cross-promotion that does not help an agent invoke this tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what a check returns (pass/fail, latency, error detail, provider status fields) — and it says nothing about the response. Core invocation is covered by the schema, but the result shape is a real gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so providerId, gateway, and allowUnsafeGateway are already documented in the schema, including the safety implications of the unsafe-gateway flag. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the expected baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Re-run the marketplace's health + functional probe for a provider') and spells out what is verified: endpoint reachable and returns a completion. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like inference_list_providers or inference_register_provider by being a check, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear triggering context — 'on demand' and 'right after (re)starting your node or tunnel' — plus the practical fact that no signature is required. It stops short of saying when not to use it or pointing at any sibling as an alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.